Comments
EXCLUSIVE Q & A WITH CHIEF PARKS -
Interviewer: How are you doing, Chief?… or is it Councilmember? Which do you prefer?
BP: Either works fine. I’ve been called worse. So, either works fine.
Interviewer:(laughs) Let’s get right into it. A couple weeks back, former politician Mark Ridley- Thomas lost his appeal. Now he’s been sentenced Did his conviction surprise you?
BP: Not at all. His outcome was pretty much set when the federal government made its decision to indict him. The federal government convicts at a rate in the 90 percentile. So— being in and around law enforcement for the majority of my life— I knew that the indictment came with the belief that the federal government felt they had more than enough evidence to win this case. The best legal advice that I give people is this: If the federal government ever informs you that they are going to indict you, call your lawyer immediately and, if possible, do it from a pay phone.The appeal followed the same course as the trial. The defense did not provide any new information and the trial record was very complete and thorough.
Interviewer: There were a lot of people in the community who viewed Ridley-Thomas’s charges as unfair and, perhaps, not as serious as the results of his trial indicated. What would you say to them?
BP: What a lot of people don’t realize is that an arrest and an indictment are two different things. Local police make arrests. When I was at LAPD, we made arrests. The suspect would make their plea at their arraignment. Then we would work with the D.A. to evaluate the evidence. Once that was complete, we would take the evidence to court for the preliminary hearing, where a judge decides whether or not we had enough evidence for a trial. If we did, we would continue working with the D.A. during the trial; providing testimony or whatever support they needed.
Federal cases are much different. By the time they indict you, they’ve— in many ways— already concluded most of their investigation. The grand jury has determined there’s enough evidence to move forward with the indictment. So, in effect, there’s already been a quasi trial with an unfavorable result for the defendant.
Interviewer: So, he was facing an uphill battle
BP: Yes. Every time you break the law and you get caught, you’re facing an uphill battle.
Interviewer: Right. He was charged with 19 felony counts and convicted of seven. We want to take advantage of your law enforcement experience here, especially your status as an FBI graduate. Can you walk us through some of the charges?
BP: Sure. The conspiracy charge has to do with a manipulated effort by more than one person to act in concert with each other to break the law. Here, the federal government had sufficient evidence due to the documented communications and relationships between Ridley-Thomas, the United Way and the dean at the University of Southern California. They had so much evidence, in fact, that they didn’t even have to tell the jury that Ridley-Thomas’s co-conspirator plead guilty and implicated him in the illegal acts. This, conviction and the denial of the appeal, shows me that our federal government and particularly the FBI did an excellent job on the investigation and securing evidence for this case. In fact, the appeals judge, who came to the case with fresh eyes, made more damning comments than the trial judge.
In my eyes, they had more than enough evidence to prove the bribery charge. But, it was tricky because the prosecutors had to combat a smokescreen by Ridley-Thomas’s defense, which insisted that no bribe took place because Ridley-Thomas had voted and had planned to vote in favor of USC’s position before the bribe took place. An unsophisticated jury might have fallen for that, but the prosecutors honed in on the fact that— if you go by the letter of the law— the defendant’s planned actions alone do not determine whether or not a bribe took place. The deciding factor, in this case, was that prosecutors could draw a line between Ridley-Thomas’s vote and the reward he got for it, which came in the form of the money transfer, the job and the enrollment for his son, provided by USC. Whether he planned to vote a certain way or not, it doesn’t matter. He was compensated beyond his salary for an official act and even worse, it was an arrangement he had knowledge of and to which he agreed. The prosecutors did a masterful job of conveying this important point to the jury, who very easily could’ve gotten tangled up in the incomplete stories laid out by the Ridley-Thomas defense. My one surprise is his son escaped indictment.
Interviewer: Do you think he was at fault?
BP: Well, he was the beneficiary. I will never know all of the inner workings of this investigation. But, I can tell you confidently that people have been indicted for seemingly less. To me, he clearly is at fault as he had full knowledge of all the criminal circumstances, and he initiated and followed up on the details to ensure the criminal conspiracy was successful. Also, he was forewarned of the illegal potential when a local non~profit refused to participate prior to him offering this scheme to USC.
This case was not an easy one to win. There is not enough that can be said for the investigators and the U.S. Attorneys that made it all happen. They faced another hurdle in proving the charge of honest service wire fraud. First of all, honest services is a relatively new crime; added to the law books in the 80s. So, prosecutors had to, first of all, explain what it means and then prove it occurred. I will try to explain it the best I can, but please keep in mind, I am not a prosecutor. As the public, we all have rights to honest services; whether that be as a consumer or as a voting member of the public. So, when the scheme to surreptitiously funnel money through the United Way to USC and then, eventually to Ridley-Thomas’s son was carried out, you have really three groups that are being violated. The voters, who elected Ridley-Thomas are violated because this was an official act by their supervisor. And, the people who do business with USC and the United Way are also violated because this conspiracy created illegal policies and procedures glaringly different from the legal ones that those involved with these organizations are instructed to follow.
Interviewer: Leading up to and following his conviction, there have been cries from the public that Ridley-Thomas’s indictment and conviction was unwarranted and maybe even racially motivated. Do you…
BP:(Interrupting) Absolutely Not. Let me ask you a question.
Interviewer:(laughing) Usually we ask the questions. But, O.K.
BP: Let’s go through all the people who’ve been indicted in city government lately…
Interviewer: O.K.
BP: Mitch Englander… Is he black?
Interviewer: No. BP: Jose Huizar? Interviewer: No.
BP: The guy from the Mayor’s Office… Ray Chan?
Interviewer: I get your point.
BP: My point is, if law enforcement is singling out one race for indictments, they’re doing a pretty shitty job. It’s been… what do you call it?… A pity party? Yes, a pity party for Ridley- Thomas. And, it’s been embarrassing. It started when the LA Times discounted his crimes by calling them “questionable ethical decisions” and actually endorsed him for city council. Then, after his indictment, he took advantage of our religious community by pleading with them to raise money for a lost cause defense that proved to be just as dishonest as him. Here is a guy who was shown how he broke the law, and the feds didn’t just pull evidence out of the sky.
They used Ridley-Thomas’s own e-mails to do it. And, an e-mail can be pivotal evidence against a suspect— no matter the race. The claims that this is, somehow, racially motivated are ridiculous. Plus, there have been warning signs for years. Whether you’re looking at the shadiness between his office and Sony mentioned in the Pro Publica article or more questionable monetary benefits for his son during his last election, there were always signs.
And, his race has nothing to do with it.
Interviewer: To that point, Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson recently said, that black elected officials are being hunted. So based on your last statement, I’m guessing you don’t find that to be true…
BP: He sounds like Trump. Isn’t that a Trump term? Witch hunt? Isn’t it amazing that Harris- Dawson is willing to falsely criticize the agencies that are attempting to clean up the political corruption in the city while he is sending a clear message that he is not offended to serve with indicted and convicted criminals. Just think of it… an elected official supporting criminals. The best comparison to this was on January 6th when Trump encouraged hoodlums to riot at the Capitol. I personally feel sorry for Harris-Dawson that he would make such a statement. It’s apparent he is not aware that one of his most important responsibilities is to protect the institution he was elected into from corruption. But, it’s not surprising. He was the first one to hug Huizar after his offices and home were subject to search warrants. And now, he’s a self- proclaimed law expert, giving his dime store analysis that Curren Price’s charges should be ethics violations and not felony charges.
He says, black electeds are being hunted. I tell you what, the community should feel that they’re being hunted because of the piss-poor services that they’re getting from the people they elect. I think we all need to keep our eye on the ball. Our former president has been indicted… FOUR TIMES! And, the overwhelming majority of this city, county and state,
including me thinks that he should probably go to prison. Now, keep in mind that Trump has not been convicted… yet. On the other side, we have Ridley-Thomas, who has been indicted and convicted, and many of the same people who are yelling in favor of Trump’s incarceration, believe that somehow we should look the other way on the wrongdoings of a convicted felon.
You know, that’s probably why the city council is in the shape it’s in now. While the body is predominantly male… you need a microscope to find the men. I am encouraged that another woman was elected to the body recently. In the past several years, we have seen what damage Sacramento politicians in particular can do when they are elected to our city council. When I retired from the council, they were too concerned with which member wore the fanciest socks on “Sock Day” and not concerned enough with having any real and meaningful community oriented debates. That’s part of the reason why you see all of these indictments, search warrants and the total inaction of the ethics commission.
Interviewer: I had planned to ask this, but after hearing that, I’m not so sure. OK, here it is: Do you miss being on the city council?
BP:(Laughs) Honestly, I miss the people who work in the departments. Those are the folks who do most of the work for the community. I miss the thought that you could work together to create some good things for the public. I don’t miss the criminal element on the city council that began to show itself during my final years there and continues to be prevalent to this day.
Interviewer: How do you fix it? The problems, the indictments have been exposed, but what is the solution to fixing the City Council and City Hall?
BP: How much time do you have?(Laughs) I’ll just focus on the council. What you have now is 15 people who may have started out with the best of intentions, individually, but as a group are not productive because of consistent bad judgement, “Groupthink” and transactional decision making. Now, whether or not they make these bad decisions intentionally or carelessly is unknown. But, what is known is that they often times make these decisions under the influence of the wrong people. And, by “wrong people” I mean people and organizations outside of the districts they represent. The best example of this incompetence is probably how they decided to fill Ridley-Thomas’s seat after his suspension. Ridley-Thomas gets indicted, then suspended without pay— and then with pay. And, one of the great things about this city are the systems that are in place for just about everything you can think of. For 60 years or so, the city had a policy that if— for whatever reason— a seat was vacated, the Chief Legislative Analyst’s Office would generally be appointed the caretaker of the seat and maintain that position until an election could be completed. That ensured that people with a desire to run for that particular seat would not be appointed, so they would not gain an unfair advantage of the incumbency.
For reasons unknown, this council walked away from that policy and illegally brought back the previous council president, Herb Wesson, who was already termed out. That angered Ridley- Thomas supporters, who took the council to court. And, the judge wasted no time in dismantling the council’s poor decision, and told Herb to go home. But, the council apparently had more bad decisions to make. Although, Wesson was disqualified from serving, the council, somehow, believed that the people he brought with him had a right to remain in the office. Next thing you know, Heather Hutt is appointed the caretaker. Another bad decision: The council didn’t make it a priority to determine if Ms. Hutt was going to run. Guess what? She decided to run. And, then you have Paul Krekorian, who represents the valley, essentially choose a non- elected person for an elected position. Now, Ms. Hutt will have the benefit of the incumbency when she runs in the next election. That’s totally wrong and unfair. It is unknown why the current council president and his members choose to compound this problem by layering one bad decision after another or why they felt compelled to implement a illegal plan designed and supported by Nury Martinez, the disgraced former council president. It’s very concerning that on the now-infamous audio tape, Martinez was adamant in her support of Hutt’s appointment. We may never know exactly why, but— whatever the case— it’s clear that the council’s incompetence is going to take them down the same corrupt path as they decide how to address the Price criminal filing and potential suspension.
Interviewer: The argument has been that the district has been lacking representation since Ridley-Thomas was suspended and that this was a move to ensure that the 10th District had a voice.
BP: Sure, but it’s Paul Krekorian’s and other council members voices you are hearing— not the community’s. And, as I mentioned, he was elected to represent the valley— not CD10. This move violates the basic principle of representation. Other elected officials are not supposed to select your representative or place their thumb on the scale to sway an election. It’s the voters who elect their representatives. All you need to look at are the nationwide trends of voter suppression and election fraud to get a glimpse of where our city is headed.
But, what this really speaks to is one of the bigger reforms needed; not adding more council members but changing the role of the council president. It has become much too powerful a position and beyond the capacity of anybody on this council to handle. The position needs to be capped at two years and rotated among the 15 members.
Interviewer: That would be a bold move. How would that work?
BP: Well, every two years you would get a new president who would ascend from the pro tempore position. The assistant pro tempore would move up to pro tempore and maybe the assistant pro tempore would be elected or chosen by longevity or alphabetically. The new system can easily be worked out as there is a good example at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that appears to have worked for decades. It would be better than the system that’s given us the recent batch of council presidents. The acts of these three presidents will stain this city for years. As president, Wesson empowered Huizar and Nury Martinez. Look how that turned out. Another problem is that now we just know too much about our city council. We know about their sexual proclivities, their son’s sexual proclivities, their need to compare black children to handbags, how many people they are simultaneously married to… Just a couple weeks back, we had a very obvious Brown Act violation occur, as the council rejected Ethics Commission nominee, Jamie York. Our city is a laughing stock.
Interviewer: Getting back to Ridley-Thomas…
BP:(interrupting) Do we have to?
Interviewer:(laughs) Quickly. You wrote a letter to the judge asking that Ridley-Thomas serve the maximum sentence.
BP: I’m not a judge. But, let me say this: As a convicted felon, who happened to be an elected official, he deserves the harshest possible sentence that falls within the sentencing guidelines. I say that because there should be a higher standard for those who serve in public office and also due to the lack of remorse and defiance he’s shown while misleading his former constituents while trying to defend himself. My belief from the start is that the judge should make an example out of him.
Interviewer: You lost a supervisor’s race to him in 2008. And, you have been— what some might say— harsh towards him in your comments following his indictments. How much of that is sore feelings from the 2008 outcome?
BP: Sure I lost the race; but not because of him, more because I was unwilling to do all that it apparently took to win the supervisor’s seat. Unfortunately, back in 2008, winning that seat meant selling yourself and your soul to Maria Elena Durazo and her L.A. County Federation of Labor. Mark showed early on that he would bend over backwards to receive that $10 million dollars in campaign money. I would not. And wouldn’t you know, it’s Mark who is in big trouble for that same transactional behavior. His behavior is consistent, and so is mine. I’d rather be where I am now than where he is going. I’d never switch places with him. I don’t know if he could say the same about me. But, after all, the biggest loser in that election wasn’t me. It was the public, who was fooled into electing a future criminal. Finally, although my comments have been harsh, they have been both truthful and accurate. I personally do not believe a person should be allowed to be in elected or stay in office or any form of public service who does not have the highest level of integrity, honesty and ethics.
Interviewer: Well, I think you covered it.
BP: Are we done? I have more material. Did I tire you all out?
Interviewer:(Laughs) That was a lot to digest.
BP:(Laughs) Well, thank you for this opportunity to be interviewed.
(The transcript of this interview was provided to CityWatchLA.com by Bernard Parks.)
